William Jennings Bryan, enemy of science and cephalopods

i-1b34491e05856c7bebbc668c7d56ff47-wjbryan.jpg

A new book titled Flock of Dodos (a book, not the movie, and apparently the two have nothing to do with each other) is coming out, and Glenn Branch of the NCSE tells me it mentions something vile about William Jennings Bryan, the defender of creationism at the Scopes trial. That’s his campaign poster to the right. Look closely, very closely — it’s a rather small image — down at the bottom left. There’s a cephalopod defending the American flag, and some kind of crazed scullery maid attacking it with an axe. Obviously, Bryan was no friend of biodiversity.

The description in the book of this image is like so:

Subtlety was not one of [William Jennings] Bryan’s strong suits. His campaign poster from that same election [1900] depicted, among other things, a sort of Lady Liberty archetype attacking a giant octopus with an axe.

This is clearly an incorrect interpretation. The octopus is central and beautiful, and if that were actually Lady Liberty, she ought to be half-naked. I think it’s Bryan advocating an uprising of the servile classes to destroy loyal invertebrate-Americans, the treacherous dog. I’m glad he lost the election.

Haven’t you tired of this yet, Pennsylvania?

A reader sent along an
an article from the Lancaster Sunday News, announcing a lecture on 17 May by John Morris, an infamously silly Young Earth Creationist. It’s a little peculiar; it’s written by Helen Colwell Adams, bylined as a staff writer for the paper, but it is completely credulous — she seems to have interviewed Morris and blindly written down everything he claimed, without so much as cocking an eyebrow and wondering if there were anything to these absurd claims. It’s a wonderful example of very bad journalism.

Morris also panders to his audience with talk about how the Pennsylvania coal fields were all laid down in one great flood. I don’t know what it is, but some people from that part of the state have the wackiest ideas about coal—witness Ed Conrad.

[Read more…]

Roy Zimmerman keeps writing those songs

As a fan of Roy Zimmerman — I’ve mentioned his Creation Science 101 before, among other lovely songs about the modern world — I have two revelations for you. If you’re a guitar player, he has released a short clip that is a tutorial on how to play Creation Science 101. There are fingerings and keys and chords and things that lost me. If you aren’t a guitar player (like me!) you can still enjoy the wisecracks.

Secondly, he has a new YouTube video titled “Ted Haggard is Completely Heterosexual”. Watch out, it’s a little bit risque — he rhymes “schism” with … well, it’s obvious from the subject matter, isn’t it?

I’m going to have to scrutinize transfer student transcripts more carefully

Would you believe a Nebraska community college is offering a course in creationism … and awarding science credits for it? If any McCook Community College students tried to transfer to my university, I’d argue that any who took that course ought to get negative credits because we’d have to assign additional corrective work to scour the garbage out of their brain.

The course is offered as a physics class. I’m getting a bit fed up with the arrogance of some physicists and engineers, could you please police your own? I can’t imagine a biology faculty member trying to create a course that taught his or her own idiosyncratic vision of physics, one that defied the expertise of their physics colleagues, but some physicists and engineers seem more than willing to declare biology to be all wrong.

We have an account of the Comfort/Cameron “proof”!

It was as inane as you might have expected. It turns out that
their “proof” of the existence of god was the coke can argument. If you don’t know what that argument is, here it is: it begins about 2½ minutes into this, and is over about 3½ minutes in. He could have done it all in one minute!

I’m sorry, but if you’re at all convinced by that pathetic argument, please, get help.

Comfort simply asserts that everything that exists had to have a creator. He goes on to build a silly argument: buildings must have a builder, paintings must have a painter, therefore creation must have a creator. We’ve been having a storm here in Morris, so I guess when I hear thunder I should assume there is a thunderer.

Anyway, I guess I don’t need to tune in to the broadcast on Wednesday, and I don’t have to worry about bothering a priest to tend to my conversion—those two guys are blithering cretins.